AEGUMENT OP JOHN S. EWART. 1371 



1629 and confirmed in 1635, and the New York grant was in 1664 

 and 1674. 



I now ask the attention of the Tribunal to these laws. The first in 

 point of date is one of the Massachusetts colony under its first 

 charter not of the Massachusetts province under the second charter. 

 This law, in 1668, established a close season for cod-fish, hake, and 

 mackerel. The succeeding laws in the Appendix are the laws of 

 New Plymouth, and the contrast between these New Plymouth laws 

 and the laws of the other colonies will be noticed. The other colonies 

 were obligated to free fishing, while New Plymouth claimed exclusive 

 fishing, and her laws are useful only for the purpose of showing the 

 contrast, and for the purpose of showing how general was the regu- 

 lation of the fisheries in those years. These New Plymouth regu- 

 lations deal with seines for mackerel, &c., p. 771, and proceeding to 

 the New Hampshire law, of 1687, you will find there a close season 

 for mackerel and provision as to seines. Massachusetts, in 1692, 

 under the second charter, enacted a law as to a close season for 

 mackerel and as to seines; and on the following pages there are other 

 laws passed by Massachusetts. The succeeding regulations relate to 

 lights merely; and one has to go on to p. 775 for the laws of New 

 York under which close seasons and regulations of nets were estab- 

 lished. In 1775, at p. 776, is a further statute of New York bring- 

 ing down the series very close to the date of the treaty of 1783. 



Now, I submit, Sirs, that I have shown that the principles of in- 

 tercolonial action were very well established ; that free fishing, in the 

 words of the charters, did not at all mean unlimited fishing, as Sena- 

 tor Turner seems to think : and that liberty to fish did not at all mean 

 license to do as one pleased it meant in conformity with the laws of 

 the place. 



Now, passing on to the position as between the northern colonies 

 and the southern colonies, one has to return to the statute of 1699. 

 The use of the words " free " and " freedom " in that Act has not 

 been called to the attention of the Tribunal, because it has not as yet 

 been necessary. I refer to p. 525 of the British Case Appendix, com- 

 mencing about ten lines from the top : 



"That from henceforth it shall and may be lawful for all His 

 Majesty's subjects residing within this his realm of England, or the 

 dominions thereunto belonging, trading or that shall trade to New- 

 foundland, and the seas, rivers, lakes, creeks, harbours in or about 

 'Newfoundland, or any of the islands adjoining or adjacent thereunto, 

 to have, use, and enjoy the free trade and traffic, and art of merchan- 

 dise and fishery, to and from Newfoundland, and peaceably to have, 

 use, and enjoy, the freedom of taking bait and fishing in any of the 



rivers, lakes,"- 



828 and so on. And the statute immediately proceeds to make 

 regulations; thus showing that to the British Parliament of 



